RE: Profile

Subject: RE: Profile
From: mlist -at- ca -dot- rainbow -dot- com
To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:39:12 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Byfield [mailto:bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com]
> Sent: January 27, 2004 12:55 PM
> Quoting Rachael Lininger <techwhirl -at- earthlink -dot- net>:
> > I do usually wind up
> > in rare and weird catagories on such tests, so maybe I just
> > expect to be marginalized for strangeness.


> Almost all this testing is a scam. It gives an aura of
> science to the decision-making process, and nothing more.
> So far as I know, there is no objective evidence (that
> is, any study done by someone who isn't promoting the use of
> these tests) that shows that any such testing results in more
> suitable hires than unaided decision-making. In some cases,
> the success isn't even
> significantly hirer than you would get by random-chance.

[...]

> Personally, I think that people have every right to object to
> being measured by
> such rubber rulers.

What he said! (and what Raphael said, too)

In my case, the Myers-Briggs (and the watered-down, abbreviated
versions that are available on the world-weird-weeb) yield
different results in at least two of the four classification
areas, on successive days. And that's with me giving honest
answers to the questions -- not trying to "beat" the test.

(Of course, I *have* beat the full Myers-Briggs [coupla decades ago],
getting past the redundancy and check questions to portray
myself as strongly other, in all four "measurement" areas...)

To me, though, it's just about as valid as horoscopes -- and it
comes with the same sorts of weasel disclaimers.

When I turn out to be other-than-predicted, the horrorscope
crowd quickly disclaims with "Oh, but you're on the cuthp,
tho the thtandard evaluathionth mutht be .... ah.... um...
interpreted. Yeth, thatth it.... interpreted."

Based on the Myers-Briggs (or similar), you could, for example,
type me as:
a) an opinionated b***ard, who nevertheless can see various sides
of almost any dispute (if you insist that there are two sides
to any argument, such a person would show you a third... and
defend it :-)

or

b) a weak personality with no strong expression in any direction.

Now, people who have encountered me in certain other lists and
venues would probably have a good idea which one is more
accurate, but what's a hiring manager going to derive from such
a test?

Furthermore, given that the interpretation of a test result can
be so widely /i/n/applicable to the tested subject (me in this
case), what should be my strategy? Furthermore, would there be
any ethical consideration involved?

I haven't read every post in these threads, so maybe this has
been answered: has anybody here had occasion to document
such testing, for corporate or government customers?

I'm thinking in terms of policy write-ups for (say) those
hiring managers who would use a psych test as an evalutation
and weeding tool. What did you tell them (in your documentation)
that they were supposed to do with the results, how did you
tell them to interpret the possible results, and what action
did you instruct them to take, based upon said results?
And... did you hold your nose while writing it?

/kevin




Previous by Author: RE: Profile
Next by Author: Self-promo in dangerous times
Previous by Thread: RE: Profile
Next by Thread: RE: Profile


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads